forgottenrealmsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forgotten Realms Wiki talk:Good articles
Totally behind this This sounds like a good idea to me. I'm totally behind this, but admins may be inundated with new requests at frist :P -Thomas Love http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/jackass/images/5/5f/Star_tiny.png talk] 21:32, October 2, 2015 (UTC) : True, there could be a lot of requests, but there's also no rush to do it. : ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:43, October 2, 2015 (UTC) TBH, I'm a bit ambivalent as it currently stands. Ideally, all articles should meet these criteria. If fully implemented, everything else, the stubs and unsourced and rambling articles, will become the ordinary articles, which feels uncomfortably like lowering our standards. On the other hand, every article I've written should be counted as Good, so that's nice. :) Ordinary articles could also be updated regularly, so they'll require constant re-evaluation. I see the benefit of something less than the epic-sized Featured Articles for regular editors to aim for, but they should still be a cut above the rest, so they're not so easy to achieve, nor are we likely to be overwhelmed with possibilities. Wookieepedia has a Good article system that is more discerning: exactly the same as a featured article, but not meeting the length requirement (1000 words). Of course, their feature articles also have more discerning requirements than ours. I listed my proposed requirements for feature articles at Forum:Featured articles!. On that basis, I feel a Good article would cover this limited set of requirements: Complete, Correct, Referenced, Formatted, and Demonstrative (so not including Important, Big, and Illustrated). — BadCatMan (talk) 12:01, October 3, 2015 (UTC) PS: Also, articles that for whatever reason can't be accepted as Features would make find Good articles. For example, Tome of Torment is pretty good, but we already have Church of Ilmater and it's single-source, so Good is a fine a second place for it. — BadCatMan (talk) 12:19, October 3, 2015 (UTC) : True, all articles should be good articles, but that's not the wiki world we live in. But aren't we working to remove the stubs and unsourced articles to make them into good articles? Having a stamp of "goodness" on an article might also give us some nice statistics: "Back in October of 20XX, only 5% of our articles followed our standards; now, in 20XX, 45% do!" This would help us to track that and push for a better wiki overall. (Yes, you and I and a few others essentially write only good articles. That's okay. We should be leading by example anyhow, yes?) : Your proposed list (Complete, Correct, Referenced, Formatted, and Demonstrative) differs from mine (Relatively Complete, Correct, Referenced, Formatted, Clean, Policy-adherent, and Not an orphan) only in adding Demonstrative, (which I like,) and not including Clean, Policy-adherent, and Not an Orphan. I think you would agree that all articles should be clean and policy-adherent, so I'm not quite sure how your list differs from mine significantly. : In fact, I intentionally took my list from your list and made it more limited, just as you suggest above. : I completely agree that Feature Articles that didn't quite make the cut should most likely be good articles. : I guess I'm confused as to the source of your ambivalence. : ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:07, October 13, 2015 (UTC) ::That statistic works in reverse: X number of stubs then, Y number of stubs now, etc. ::Well, Clean and Policy-adherent went without saying. I don't think being an orphan should count against an article; some fine ones may be made in areas that aren't otherwise well covered, so they won't get linked to. ::I guess I see a hierarchy of articles: ::# Featured Articles: Best of the best, big, beautiful, and demonstrating everything ::# Good articles: Not quite featured-quality, still impressive and demonstrative ::# Regular articles: Decent, informative, fairly complete; should form most of the population ::# Poor articles: Checked-over stubs and incompletes ::# Cruddy articles: Unsourced, bad POVs, mucky, otherwise flawed ::I feel the criteria as currently defined would be picking down to Regular, which I feel would be casting the net too wide or too deep. I don't think regular articles need special treatment, by definition. Perhaps if we all presented lists of what we would consider "Good"-worthy articles, we could settle on some criteria. This type, more than any other, will be rather subjective. — BadCatMan (talk) 13:47, October 13, 2015 (UTC) Qualifications I feel having an image shouldn't be a requirement. Being largely novel- and sourcebook-based, the Realms are primarily a written setting. There are some great articles for which there are no relevant images. There are also major novel characters who will have no artwork. I prefer an article be fully complete, because that is most useful and clear to a reader. Of course, completeness might not cover every edition, but an article should at least be complete from the source(s) used/known, and be able to stand alone (i.e, there's no mysteries to the content). — BadCatMan (talk) 12:01, October 3, 2015 (UTC) : I fully agree about images; hence, the phrase "if appropriate." That can certainly be reworded to clarify. My point here is that if there are plenty of images of, say, blue dragons floating around, which there are, a good blue dragon article has no excuse not to have one. : I think your definition of "fully complete" is my definition of "relatively complete". I completely agree with you that "completeness might not cover every edition, but an article should at least be complete from the source(s) used/known, and be able to stand alone." We can reword the policy to use those very words, and I'd be quite happy with that. When I used the term "relatively" I meant "does not need to be as complete as a Feature Article," for which we require something from every known source and edition out there, if I understand correctly. : ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:07, October 13, 2015 (UTC) Possible GA Template I was thinking of something like this to go on a page that is a Good Article. I wanted it to be unobtrusive, so it's only the width of an infobox and floats to the right. I went with a gold coin, thinking that we might eventually change a lot of our tag boxes around, as we've been discussing. If and when we do, perhaps we could make stubs have a copper coin image, good articles a gold, and FAs a platinum, with the idea that all other articles are silver? ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:42, October 2, 2015 (UTC) : Template looks great! Maybe make the coin a little bigger (30 px perhaps)? And a very washed out gold backgorund colour might be nice. : I really love the idea for different coins for different qualities of articles! Stroke of genius! : -Thomas Love http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/jackass/images/5/5f/Star_tiny.png talk] 22:08, October 2, 2015 (UTC) ::I don't really see a need for multiple grades. The , , and other such templates pretty much speak for themselves and Featured Articles are already covered by . Also, grading is subjective and the more grades you have the harder it is to find consensus. Even the word "good" is subjective—I suggest changing it to "gold". I suppose it would be okay to give out gold coin badges to "complete" articles, but I am not in favor of attempting to grade 16,000+ articles when they are already tagged with those templates I just listed: it's just busy work. And how about this scenario: An article is given a gold coin because it meets the criteria, then someone comes along and adds some 5th edition lore but doesn't have a reference, then someone else adds . Does the article lose its gold status? It no longer meets the criteria, but was a perfectly good article until someone tried to improve it! This gets absurd rather quickly and I feel we do not need yet another bit of administrivia that distracts the admins from actually adding content along with all the other things we have to do. —Moviesign (talk) 03:02, October 3, 2015 (UTC) :::I like the idea of using images to accompany our tags. Wookiepedia has pertinent images and quotes that really personalise their wiki, though we don't have to go that far (nor is the Realms all that quotable). But coins are nice. It reminds me of a Volo's Guide. :D Actually, why not a golden scroll? Platinum scrolls for Featured Articles, gold scrolls for Good articles. But I wouldn't give them to other articles, especially problematic ones, as per my lowered standards argument above. Regular decent articles shouldn't get special treatment. :::I agree that bringing articles to "good" status should be a priority before shepherding articles that have Good status. Then again, there is that old rule I just made up: you propose it, you work it. Good luck, Lhynard. :p — BadCatMan (talk) 12:01, October 3, 2015 (UTC) ::::"I like the idea of using images to accompany our tags." yay ::::"Platinum scrolls for Featured Articles, gold scrolls for Good articles." ::::I think I like the idea of coins better than colored scrolls, since a platinum or gold scroll doesn't really make sense, but I love the idea of scrolls as the backgrounds to all our tags. A parchment-colored scroll with an image of a gold or platinum coin on it would be a nice touch, I think ,for good or features articles, respectively. ::: To clarify, Movie, I actually didn't mean to suggest that we should have multiple grades in actuality. We aren't big enough for that. I just meant that it makes sense to think of featured articles as platinum articles and stubs as copper ones, not that we need to go making tags for such things and having special systems of rating them. However, I think it might be fun to use a an old copper coin on our already existing tags or a platinum coin on our Featured Article tag. We were talking somewhere else about re-doing all of the tags for consistency anyhow. :::I completely agree with you that "grading is subjective and the more grades you have the harder it is to find consensus." My proposal is simply to have good articles be a simple "Yes, this passes a checklist of things we want all articles to be." Featured Articles are a step above that and involve a subjective voting process and show that the community, as a group, wants to highlight an article. I see them as each serving different purposes. :::I slightly prefer calling them "Good Articles" over "Gold Articles" because to me, saying "gold" implies the very rating system you seem opposed to. I hear "gold" and think, "Where are the silver and bronze articles?" :::Yes, some of this ends up being busy work. But all such busy work is voluntary. No one would make you or anyone else do it. As BatCat said, if someone has an idea, she or he (I) can be the one's to put in the work. :) :::The scenario you describe of an article losing status could hypothetically happen to an FA as well, yes? ::: ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:07, October 13, 2015 (UTC) ::: P.S.: I love the word "administrivia". :) :: Thanks, Thomas! Do you think you could find or make me a nice, free scroll background image? ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:07, October 13, 2015 (UTC) :::I can whip up some scroll backgrounds. It should be noted that adding images as background can be hassle. I found this on the topic. ::: Can you let me know a few different sizes/dimensions you'd want for background images? :::-Thomas Love http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/jackass/images/5/5f/Star_tiny.png talk] 12:18, October 13, 2015 (UTC) :::: Well, if we accept my idea of having tags for FAs and GAs be no wider than an infobox, the scroll should probably be around 275px and "unroll horizontally". :::: In a perfect world, other tags should stretch to fit the window. To do this with an image would require a crazy use of css or tables with a separate picture for each corner, the top, bottom, and sides, with the middle being a tiled texture. But that's a ton of work. You are good at the graphics side of thing, so whatever you think best. I think it would be nice for these bigger scrolls to unroll vertically. ::::~ Lhynard (talk) 01:41, October 14, 2015 (UTC) :::::If I'm honest, I'm still not entirely sure what is needed, but I've created this image as a first draft. If this is not what you were asking for please elaborate. ::::: ::::: Thanks -Thomas Love http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/jackass/images/5/5f/Star_tiny.png talk] 11:04, October 14, 2015 (UTC) ::::::That looks really great. I'd make it a shade or two lighter so black text stands out more, but I'd have to see it. Whatever you end up with, if you can give me a left-scroll image, a right-scroll image, and a middle-scroll that is repeatable (so the left edge matches the right edge), I think I can some up with an expandable box that can be an arbitrary width and still look good. —Moviesign (talk) 12:39, October 14, 2015 (UTC) ::::::: I've updated the image so it's colour corrected. How wide do you want the repeating "middle" sections to be? ::::::: -Thomas Love http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/jackass/images/5/5f/Star_tiny.png talk] 14:08, October 14, 2015 (UTC) ::::::::Have we decided how wide these banners are going to be? If they are the whole width of the article, then a 3–5 cm block should be fine. If it's only going to be as wide as an infobox, then 1–2 cm at the most. —Moviesign (talk) 17:15, October 14, 2015 (UTC) :::I agree with using gold coins but calling them Good for the reasons Lhynard gives. :::Yes, a Featured or Good article could lose its status. But generally, we admins will be watching it, so when new, problematic info is added, we'd be quickly checking it and verifying it. For example, Eilistraee is featured now, but will inevitably be expanded, so we have to keep an eye on it. — BadCatMan (talk) 13:47, October 13, 2015 (UTC) Banner Test Discussion moved to Forum:Wiki-wide Revision of Tags Using Scrolls. Policy status Should this be made an official policy yet or is it still in a trail mode? -Thomas Love http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/jackass/images/5/5f/Star_tiny.png talk] 11:56, November 7, 2016 (UTC) :I am not sure. Do we have consensus? ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:25, December 13, 2016 (UTC) ::Just to reiterate, we are going with Correct, Referenced, Formatted, Clean, Nearly Complete, and Policy-adherent/Demonstratve. Right? Works for me. —Moviesign (talk) 19:53, December 13, 2016 (UTC) :::That's what I am on-board with, yes. ~ Lhynard (talk) 04:34, January 3, 2017 (UTC)